Ross Hatley

Mesh nebulizers have become the first choice for new nebulized pharmaceutical drug developments

In the 24 years since first being marketed, the mesh nebulizer has been developed by five main manufacturers into a viable solution for the delivery of high-value nebulized drugs. Mesh nebulizers provide increased portability, convenience and energy efficiency along with similar lung deposition and increased ease of use compared with jet nebulizers. An analysis of EU and US clinical trial databases has shown that mesh nebulizers are now preferred over jet nebulizers for clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. The results show a strong preference for the use of mesh nebulizers in trials involving high cost and niche therapy areas. Built-in capability to optimize the way patients use their mesh nebulizer and manage their disease will further increase uptake. [Formula: see text].

Variability in delivered dose and respirable delivered dose from nebulizers: are current regulatory testing guidelines sufficient to produce meaningful information?

Background To improve convenience to patients, there have been advances in the operation of nebulizers, resulting in fast treatment times and less drug lost to the environment. However, limited attention has been paid to the effects of these developments on the delivered dose (DD) and respirable delivered dose (RDD). Published pharmacopoeia and ISO testing guidelines for adult-use testing utilize a single breathing pattern, which may not be sufficient to enable effective comparisons between the devices. Materials and methods The DD of 5 mg of salbutamol sulfate into adult breathing patterns with inhalation:exhalation (I:E) ratios between 1:1 and 1:4 was determined. Droplet size was determined by laser diffraction and RDD calculated. Nine different nebulizer brands with different modes of operation (conventional, venturi, breath-enhanced, mesh, and breath-activated) were tested. Results Between the non-breath-activated nebulizers, a 2.5-fold difference in DD (~750–1,900 µg salbutamol) was found; with RDD, there was a more than fourfold difference (~210–980 µg). With increasing time spent on exhalation, there were progressive reductions in DD and RDD, with the RDD at an I:E ratio of 1:4 being as little as 40% of the dose with the 1:1 I:E ratio. The DD and RDD from the breath-activated mesh nebulizer were independent of the I:E ratio, and for the breath-activated jet nebulizer, there was less than 20% change in RDD between the I:E ratios of 1:1 and 1:4. Conclusion Comparing nebulizers using the I:E ratio recommended in the guidelines does not predict relative performance between the devices at other ratios. There was significant variance in DD or RDD between different brands of non-breath-activated nebulizer. In future, consideration should be given to revision of the test protocols included in the guidelines, to reflect more accurately the potential therapeutic dose that is delivered to a realistic spectrum of breathing patterns.